Knowledge by Agreement: The Programme of Communitarian Epistemology

318 Pages·2004·1.05 MB·English

by  Martin Kusch

KNOWLEDGE BY AGREEMENT
This page intentionally left blank
KNOWLEDGE BY AGREEMENT
The Programme of Communitarian Epistemology
Martin Kusch
CLARENDON PRESS · OXFORD
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxfordox26DP
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity'sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
OxfordNewYork
AucklandBangkokBuenosAiresCapeTownChennai
DaresSalaamDelhiHongKongIstanbulKarachiKolkata
KualaLumpurMadridMelbourneMexicoCityMumbaiNairobi
SãoPauloShanghaiTaipeiTokyoToronto
withanassociatedcompanyinBerlin
Oxfordisaregisteredtrademark ofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUK andincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
ByOxfordUniversityPressInc., NewYork
©MartinKusch2002
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2002
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,or transmitted,inanyform orbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwriting ofOxfordUniversityPress,
oras expresslypermittedbylaw, or under termsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
Kusch,Martin.
Knowledgebyagreement:theprogrammeofcommunitarianepistemology/ MartinKusch.
p.cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
1. Knowledge,Sociologyof. I.Title.
BD175.K875 2002 121—dc21 0199251223
ISBN0-19-925122-3
10987654321
TypesetinSpectrumMT
byKolamInformationServicesPvt.Ltd,Pondicherry, India
For Sarah
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
Contemporary philosophers can be classified in terms of the other—non-philosophical—fields of inquiry that most
impact on their respective philosophical work. For present-day epistemologists and philosophers of science the most
influential fields are cognitive science, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and physics. I belong to the small minority
thatbelievesthatsome of themost importantchallenges to philosophytoday come from thesociology of knowledge.
In this programmatic essay I sketch how epistemology must change if it wishes to do justice to what is valuable and
lastinginthesociologists'insistencethatknowledgeisasocialinstitution.Thisessayisnot,however,anintroductionto
thesociology of knowledge. I seek to bring out thefundamentally social nature of knowledge through a discussionof
philosophical theories. My aim is to arrive at, or recapture, some of the sociologists' insights by discussing
philosophical texts and arguments.
I am gratefultotheUniversityofCambridge fora sabbaticalterm intheautumn of1999, and totheBritish Academy
fora MatchingTerm Award inthespring of2000. Mostofthebook was writtenduringthisperiod ofeightmonths. I
spent the autumn of 1999 at my old alma mater, the University of Edinburgh. Special thanks are due, as always, to
CaroleTansleyfor herfriendshipandforherhelpwitha thousandpracticalities.CeliaandDavidBloorentrusted their
exquisitely furnished NewTown flat intomy clumsy hands. (NowonderthatDavid's influence canbefeltthroughout
the pages that follow: most of these pages were written in his study.) For this many thanks.
As far as commentators are concerned, I am most grateful to David Bloor (again), David Chart, Harry Collins,
MichaelEsfeld, Sarah GoreCortes, Jeremy Gray, MatthewRatcliffe, SimonSchaffer, and twoanonymous referees for
Oxford University Press. All of them read the whole manuscript and made numerous critical and constructive
comments. Anjan
viii PREFACE
Chakravartty, Anandi Hattiangadi, Jonas Larsson, Peter Lipton, Donald MacKenzie, and Paul Teller read versions of
various chaptersand preventedme from manymistakes. Anjan's and Anandi's very detailedcommentsonParts I and
II, respectively, were especially valuable.
Central chapters of the book were presented to audiences of philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists in Bath,
Cambridge, Cork, Edinburgh, San Sebastian, Sheffield, and Toronto. Particularly memorable was a presentation of
‘truthfinitism’totheMoralSciencesClubinCambridgein1998:questionsbyMichaelEsfeld,JaneHeal,SusanJames,
Tim Lewens, and Hugh Mellor forced me to rethink a number of issues.
I also owe a very substantial debt to two reading–discussion groups in the Department of History and Philosophy of
Science in Cambridge. The Epistemology Reading Group discussed relativism and feminist epistemology for two
terms in 1998, and I learned much from these meetings. The Sociology of Knowledge/Social Epistemology Group
metregularlyduringtheacademicyear1998/9.AlthoughIbenefitedfromtheinputofallparticipantsandspeakers,as
far as this book is concerned I feel especially indebted to a talk by Miranda Fricker and to various comments by
Katherine Hawley.
ItwasmygoodfortunethatIwasabletopresentcentralthemesofthisessayintwoundergraduatelecturecourses(in
the autumn of 1998 and the spring of 2001). Students' comments and questions more than once helped me to see
where my arguments needed improving.
Many of the ideas expounded in this book were first tested in informal conversations with friends, students, and
colleagues. I must beginbythankingthree colleagues: NickJardine,Peter Lipton, and SimonSchaffer. Nickprevented
me from adoptingthe group mind hypothesis; Peterset the standard for clarity and rigour; and Simontold me where
my work belonged. I could not have written this book without them. Encouragement and/or critical questions also
camefromLouisCampos,Hsing-ZenChen,DavidGooding,MiaGray,MatthiasHild,JohnHolmwood,SusanJames,
Dominick Jenkins, Bernard Katz, Ki-Heung Kim, Matthias Klaes, Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Jeff Kochan, Erna
Kusch (who, yet again, kept me up to date on the German intellectual scene), Sanjoy Mahajan, Massimo Mazzotti,
Yuvel Millo, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Maureen O'Malley, Pauline Padfield, Catherine Pickstock, Irene Rafanell, Mike Rich,
Ulinka
PREFACE ix
Rublack, Steve Shapin, Norman Sieroka, Patricia Soley Beltran, Mark Sprevak, and Steve Sturdy.
Last, but not least, I am grateful to Peter Momtchiloff for accepting this book for publication, Charlotte Jenkins for
seeing the book through to publication, and Laurien Berkeley for her help with the copy-editing process.
I dedicatethis book to Sarah Gore Cortes for her support—intellectual, emotional, culinary, and much else besides. I
started thinking about this book shortly before we had our first coffee together. Serious writing began the same week
weboughtcommunaltableclothsandclothesracks.Andoneweekaftera firstdraftwascompleted,friendsandfamily
showered us with rice—at last a philosophy book with a happy ending.
M.K.